Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Michael makes a rescue attempt equipped with Angels Sword. Uzzah blocks and uses effect to discard himself, protecting all lost souls. Can Michael still play an enhancement from the effect of Angel's Sword with no evil character in battle?

Also, do weapons follow Heroes when they are returned from play to hand by an effect?

The second question fits under the "placed cards follow their hosts" ruling, which is true for just about everything. I think capture was the one exception.

However I do not think that Michael gets to play GE if there is no EC in battle (after Uzzah discards himself).  My understanding of Angel's Sword is that it gives init to Michael on an initiative check regardless of whether he is currently winning or losing the battle.  However, if Uzzah discards himself and there is no EC in battle, then there would never be an initiative check.

Angel's Sword works like many of the horses weapons, in that it has a special ability that allows an enhancement to be played, provided a condition is met. Did a human Evil Character block? Yes. Then you may play an enhancement. The wording isn't contingent upon Uzzah remaining in battle, only that he blocked. Once the block is complete, the special ability on Angel's Sword takes effect and the enhancement may be played.

This seems to go along with the sentiment of a ruling Sir Nobody made regarding TToD and Uzzah, but it was contended (a lot) in that thread, questioned by Prof U (funny this thread went similarly ), and Prof U also commented on how complicated and confusing the explanation by Sir Nobody was (which is due to the rules involved, not his posts themselves IMO).  Then in the end, we never really got the impression it was fully resolved.

Can we know what the ruling is from the Elders as a whole, and what rules it entails?  As this involves multiple scenarios, I want to make sure I'm on the same page as the current ruling in my upcoming tournaments.

This seems to go along with the sentiment of a ruling Sir Nobody made regarding TToD and Uzzah, but it was contended (a lot) in that thread, questioned by Prof U (funny this thread went similarly ), and Prof U also commented on how complicated and confusing the explanation by Sir Nobody was (which is due to the rules involved, not his posts themselves IMO).  Then in the end, we never really got the impression it was fully resolved.

Ah, I remember that discussion.  That was back when we were figuring out the whole "trigger" vs. "condition" issue, which ended up in the ruling posted here.

Using that official ruling to apply to the TToD & Uzzah example indicates that SirNobody considers the phrase "is blocked" to be an ongoing state, and therefore the fortress is checking even while Uzzah's SA is happening and therefore sees him there even though he'll be gone by the time his SA is over.

Using that same ruling to apply to Angel's Sword indicates that Gabe considers the phrase "if blocked" to also be an ongoing state, and therefore the same thing happens.

I thought there was a ruling a while back about "play next" abilities that would make the "play as" for Angel's Sword more of an eratta, but I can't seem to find it now.  So at this point, the safest ruling on this card would be Gabe's.

No, as he is not in battle to be negated.

I thought there was a ruling a while back about "play next" abilities that would make the "play as" for Angel's Sword more of an eratta, but I can't seem to find it now. 

RTS's question may be what you were referring to (although it would have nothing to do with the ability to play something after Uzzah). The original wording said "Hero may," which indicated that the enhancement had to be played on Michael. Whereas the "Play As" says "Holder may," which allows Abe's Servant to be played on Jacob. I would indeed say that is an errata.

With that said, I think Abe's Servant would negate the protect ability of Uzzah, and similar cards (if timed correctly).

I was not aware that the ability was tied to the presence of the card for ongoing abilities. Abe's Servant is a "Negate All."

So, a card would have to negate "protection abilities" to stop an ability that has been activated by a card that is no longer in battle, otherwise the ability becomes CBI?

Mr. ITB thinks differently. 

Mr. ITB thinks differently. 

Alright so it's not CBI, but ItB would not stop Uzzah or the like. I meant that only a card that specifies to negate "protection abilities" would stop Uzzah after he discards himself.

I know the reason behind this one--we made the rule that Heroes do not play enhancements, players (holders) play enhancements (on Heroes).

However, if the intent was for the bearer of Angel's Sword to be the Hero on which the enhancement was played, then we probably do need to adjust the play as.

I remember the rationale, but I also remember the distinction being made between "Hero" and "A Hero." Anytime that a SA started with "Hero may," it only applied to that hero.

The default for all abilities is "in play", so unless Abe's Servant has verbiage specifically allowing it to target a card in a discard pile, it can't negate Uzzah, right?

The first part of this answers ALL of the questions.  ITB, Negate All, Negate Protection, etc. etc. cannot affect Uzzah's ability.  In order to negate an ability, you must be able to target the source.  And in each of those cases, the interrupt/negate does not specify location.  Therefore, only cards that are "in play" can be affected by them.

So Abe's Kid says "Negate All", and while it says "all" it does not affect cards in set-aside, RFG, LoR, hand, deck, discard.  Only those in play.  Since it cannot hit the character (which it says it is negating, not just the ability), it cannot negate Uzzah in discard.

ITB says that it interrupts all ongoing abilities, but again it says "all" without specifying location.  It follows that it cannot interrupt a card that is not "in play" for the same reasons as stated above.  The only time it can is when that card is causing Special Initiative, which is not the case with Uzzah.

Since the newest definition of SI, nothing can stop Uzzah once he discards himself.  He must be prevented or the cards already protected (by Abigail, say, as you can be protected from protection), otherwise his protection will not end.

Been a week - any updates on this thread?

Kirk

Been a week - any updates on this thread?

Kirk

What's still not clear?

Here's what the REG says about negates:

General Description
A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability.
How to Play
A negate ability interrupts all specified special abilities and prevents them from reactivating. A negate ability also prevents
targeted special abilities from ever being able to activate.

Unlike some other special ability types I don't see anything under negate that specifies the default condition "Targets must be in play.” That lines up with the way I've always understood negate to work - you can negate a special ability that is no longer in play.

One of the first practical examples I encountered when I started playing is this - rescuer plays Great Faith and exchanges the searched for enhancement to hand. Initiative passes and the defender plays a EE that says "negate the special ability of the last good enhancement". Great Faith is in the deck, but it still gets negated.

Using the Uzzah example that's been discussed above, after Uzzah has activated and has discarded himself, if you found a way to band Habakkuk into the battle, he would negate Uzzah's protection.

Habakkuk - Negate all protect abilities on evil cards.  After this battle, you may discard a warrior class Evil Character. Cannot be negated.

In the original question, we've confirmed that Angel's Sword does allow Michael to play an enhancement. If that enhancement is Striking Herod, then Uzzah would be interrupted and discarded by Striking Herod because he was the last card played by the opponent in the current battle.

Striking Herod - Interrupt the battle and discard a male human Evil Character.

Special Conditions
 The phrase “interrupt the battle” includes interrupting the following:
o all active ongoing abilities
o abilities that are defeating one of the characters you control in battle
o the last card played in current battle if it was played by your opponent.
 Interrupt the battle only includes such abilities if they were activated on cards in the current battle.